Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Maple

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Maple

Peter Maple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created and then edited repeatedly by

• Delete — I've checked about half the references and none of the ones I looked at supported notability. Many of them don't even support the text in the article they are being used to reference. I did find one news story that mentions Maple, Splashing out, but it quotes him on a different subject, and does not constitute substantial coverage. I don't believe the subject meets the
  notability criteria. Rees11 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- there is indeed a bit of coverage of this person in the press, but no articles substantially about him. He certainly fails
  WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This expert on post-modern marketing has not yet achieved notability in
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete The only claim to notability appears to be that subject is the Course Director at a university with the "largest cohort of charity students in the UK", and there is no independent analysis to show that that is notable. Many people work in the charity field and we should only have articles on those who satisfy
  WP:BIO – a level not achieved by this subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - after many edits, subject still seems non-notable and the article still reads like a résumé. --CliffC (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quite evident this person does not meet
  WP:PROF, and since the questionable nature of the many of the sources has been brought up, it leads me to endorse deleting this page. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.